Dependency and independence

Perspectives on the (expensive) way of being church1

Practical Theology in South Africa, 11(1) 1996, 14-23

Prof. J.J. (Dons) Kritzinger

Introduction
The Kairos Document of 1984 said it in a most provocative way: there
are in reality two separate churches in South Africa, a White and a
Black Church (Kairos ). This document meant it in a politico-theological
way, but my contention is that it reflects a socio-economic reality
which cannot be denied. The black community is the poorest section of
the South African population. Likewise, the churches struggle with
bread-and-butter issues. These are issues which should concern the
Practical Theologians.

In this paper my interest is in another contrast, this time within the

"Black Church:" that between the "Dependent" and the "Independent"
Churches. The term "Independent Churches" is well known and in
constant use. They are called "Independent" not only because of their
origin, which is not the result of "foreign" mission, but also their
independent and free existence. What is not often emphasized is that
these churches are as a rule also independent financially. In contrast
to them there are those black churches that I here call "Dependent
Churches," because of their financial dependence on others. They are
more usually called "Mission Churches," or "Western Initiated
Churches." It goes without saying that this is especially an area where
Missiology and Practical Theology meet and should compare notes.

My interest in the subject of Church and Money was stimulated by a

number of things. Being a pastor in black churches in poor
communities for the past 22 years has given me an insight into the

1
This is a revised edition of a paper read at the NERMIC (Centre for the Study of
New Religious Movements and Independent Churches) symposium of July 1995. The
material, which was there focused on leaders of the African Independent Churches, is
here written for a wider audience. It is not intended to be a "learned" contribution,
but rather a challenge for Practical Theology from the practical experience of a
significant sector of South African Christianity.

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
financial aspect of work in a church which was (and still is) largely
dependent on a "mother church." Some years ago I wrote a book
(Kritzinger 1979) in which I wrestled with this reality. I was convinced
thenas I am nowthat structural issues lay at the basis of this
paralyzing dependency. These issues had to be solved. There is no
way in which a church within a poor community can survive financially
without radically recasting the inherited structures of their well-to-do
western "mother" churches. The present structures could only be
perpetuated through the influx of enormous amounts of "foreign"
money. Such a church is doomed to a dependent existence, with
everything it entails.

Dependency of a church, the same as with an individual, can be

understood as the psychological effect of poverty. It is tragic, but true,
that poverty breeds a "culture of poverty" which takes away people's
dignity and ability to such an extent that they become unable to do
anything positive for themselves. The "beggar mentality" causes a
person to only sit and wait on

other people to do something for them. Such a church is a disgrace to

its calling as witness to and representative of the creator and caring
God. Dependency is certainly one of the most serious diseases a
church can contract.

Some time ago Jonathan Bonk published a book on "Missions and

Money" (Bonk 1991). This book caused quite a stir within the missions
community, because his theme was stated as: "Affluence as a Western
Missionary Problem." He very clearly stated the destructive possibilities
of missions having (too much) money around. One of the main
problems is the use of mission money in such a way that the emerging
church becomes dependent. My present paper is dealing with the same
problem, but applied not so much to missions, but to the missionary
existence of the church as such.

Through the years that I have pondered these issues I couldn't help
noticing the vast differences in this regard between the African
Independent Churches (AICs) and the other "mission" churches. The
AICs in general (I know I generalize) don't seem to suffer from the
deadly disease of dependency. They deal with money (or the lack of
it), but don't seem to be bogged down by it. They are "independent." I
think it may be valuable and important to explore this area from the

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
perspective of the structural differences between the AICs and the
mission churches2.

What is Causing the Church to be so Expensive?

The first is the institution called “the ministry”.3

All churches (with the exception of only a few) have this in common: a
class of accepted (ordained or unordained) leaders, who serve in the
church by leading the worship, looking after the members' spiritual
welfare, and who represent the church in the community. These
people are per definition highly regarded by the church members and
are expected to lead by example.

It is common in traditional churches that these people serve full-time

in the church, and therefore have to be supported. Being respected
leaders, the salaries paid to these pastors or ministers have to be such
that they can move with ease in the community. They were seen as
ranking in terms of status in the community with other leaders like the
teachers, magistrates and businessmen. Basically, it is expected that
the clergy person should be enabled to support his family without
undue financial worries. This requires quite a package, especially when
the church also has to provide him with a decent manse to live in, a
pension and a travel allowance.

The financial responsibility this entails is largely dependent on the kind

of training the church expects from its ministers. In the Reformed
tradition where I come frombut also in most of the so-called mainline
churchesno one is ordained as a pastor without undergoing an
academic theological training of some five to six years, often including
the earning of university degrees. To provide this kind of training is
extremely expensive, even where the candidates are expected to pay
their own fees. Where this training is conducted at universities, the

2
The once affluent churches are increasingly forced to give attention to the aspect of
financial survival. It is true that they operate on quite another level of sophistication
than the poor churches, a kind of level which is unthinkable for those churches.
Although I am here focusing on churches with financial problems at the other end of
the spectrum, I think the issues may be relevant also for them.
3
In my previously mentioned book (Kritzinger 1979) I dealt extensively with the
theological misunderstanding related to this (professional) view of "the ministry".
The basic ministry is that of the whole people of God. Some people are indeed called
to specific tasks, but as enablers of the others. When the church members expect
the "ministers" to do everything, a dependent church is in the making.

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
church is usually expected to make huge contributions. Where the
training is done at an independent seminary or Bible school, the cost is
even higher, because well qualified teachers have to be found and
paid, land bought and buildings erected, a library stocked, dormitories
provided, etc. But the candidate made available to the church will be
the kind that the church wanted: a person with academic
qualifications, and middle class expectations.

Another thing: to enable the pastor to visit the flock, attend the many
meetings, represent the church in relevant circles, and conduct
funerals and weddings transport is necessary. To buy and maintain a
vehicle is taking quite a toll in reserves.

To summarize: it is very expensive to form and keep a class of

professional, well qualified, full-time leaders in the church. When these
leaders have socio-economic needs and expectations above those of
the average church member, it becomes virtually impossible for a
medium sized church to afford such a minister. Such churches simply
cannot afford an old- style ministry4.

If the "mother church" regards these academic standards as absolutely

necessary, it will have to foot the bill!

The second expensive aspect of church life is the erection and main
tenance of suitable church buildings5.

The price of land, building materials, and labor have escalated to such
an extent that it is ridiculously expensive to erect a building of any
size. And once it is erected, it has to be maintained, and the services
of the local authorities have to be paid! It is usually not only the place
for worship that is erected, but other facilities such as a manse, a hall,
and maybe even a creche.

Two things further complicate matters. The one is the pervasive

"temple theology", which associates the church building with the Old
Testament temple of Jerusalem, and regards it as the "house of God".

4
I am focusing here on churches in (relatively) poor communities. I am aware that
in many other communities the pastor is actually paid much less than the average
income of the members. However, how many members really contribute significantly
towards their pastor's salary?
5
I recently dealt with the topic of Church and Buildings in more detail. See Kritzinger
1994.

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
It is then argued "that only the best would do for God's dwelling on
earth"! The expense, the lavishness are seen as evidence of devotion
to God. For the same reason the church building can certainly not be
used for other "secular" occasions, but has to be kept "holy" and
undefiled by using it only for church work on Sundays. Thus these
buildings are really costly investments. A "mission" church has
inherited this theology from its "mother". The "mother" is therefore
under obligation to make possible the dream of a "temple". The result
is further dependence.

The other complicating factor relates to the observations above

regarding "the ministry". The typical theology of a church not only
determines the kind of leaders which that church desires, but also
whether the church needs a specific building for its worship, as well as
the kind of architectural requirements. Catholic and sacramental
churches require all sorts of expensive symbols, altars, vestments and
rooms. But Protestant churches also have their requirements. The
emphasis on preaching calls for not only academically trained
personnel, but also the kind of buildings where the church can be
constituted in worship as people of God, through the Word and
sacraments.

The fact of the matter is that church buildings are expensive and are a
drain on the resources of the church.

Some of these things already imply certain requirements for the

administration of the church. This is the third area of church life
which costs a lot of money. The larger a church becomes, the higher is
its social status, the more peoplewith higher qualificationsit employs,
and the more elaborate its administration becomes. This happens to
local churches, but more so with the synodical and ecumenical
structures, which cannot function without the input of a lot of money.
More is spent by some churches on carpets, computers and air
conditioning for their administration than many other churches have
available for their whole operation! This money is supposed to come
from the members of the local churches. But when that becomes
impossible dependency on outsiders creeps in.

With all these overhead costs it is understandable that there are often
no money or energy available for mission projects, the aspect which
makes the church's existence worthwhile. Unfortunately also the
mission work is conducted in the same expensive way. It requires
even more money, because relatively more travel is necessary, and
mission work is a comprehensive involvement with a community.

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
Where does all this money come from? How is it collected?
In many or most black churches the kind of financial resources
necessary to run such an expensive operation are simply not readily
available. All kinds of methods are used to collect the necessary
income.

The first approach borders on coercion. Members are required to pay

dues, somewhat like the state levies taxes. Different categories of
"tithes" are introduced to obtain the necessary income. None of these
contributions are quite voluntary. The Bible is (mis)used, loyalty is
invoked, and open or implied threats are uttered about the loss of
membership, or the right to sacraments and burial. People are more or
less forced to pay for the exorbitant costs of church work.

Those members who do pay their dues feel very good about it. Very
often such members desire to be buried with their receipts or paid up
membership cards in their coffins... their passage is paid. On the other
hand, those who can't afford it, or who for reasons of their own do not
pay the "kabelo," are relegated to second class membership, are
regarded as disloyal, and often hear taunts directed to them - a very
unpleasant situation.

Alternatively, or in addition, churches turn to begging. It is general

practice to distribute collection lists to membersor the pastors
themselves walk around with themby which businesses, workplaces or
private homes in the suburbs are invaded and donations asked. Some
pastors are literally begging from door to door for their own support,
or for charitable projects of their church. It certainly is a degrading
experience, and exposes them and their members to the possibility of
either developing a subhuman beggar attitude, or being actively
humiliated.

Churches also go so far as to resort to subtle or even open demands.

Sometimes demands (if not in so many words) are made for support
from their traditional sponsors. Where churches were planted by a
"mother" church, they put pressure on this "mother" to finance the
continuation of the inherited structures. All kinds of arguments and
sentiments - positive and negative - are invoked. It is unnecessary to
say that that is not exactly a way to nurture cordial and family
relations!

Churches also try business ventures. These are more often than not
in the hands of the pastors, who generally are not qualified for it. No
wonder they are usually not successful. However, churches keep on

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
trying. The perception is that any business or agricultural venture will
bring in money. Often it causes still larger capital outlays and losses.

Lastly, churches do make use of voluntary offerings. Much teaching

on stewardship is done in churches, but unfortunately it is usually
marred by the unbiblical methods of obtaining income outlined above.
Nevertheless - and that is almost the most tragic aspect of it all -
many faithful members support the church voluntarily and sacrificially.
Their sacrifices unfortunately disappear into the bottomless pit of
expensive church machinery.

What are the results of the expensive way of being church and
the unbiblical practices to get income?
The pre-occupation with financial matters, necessary to make ends
meet, is bearing tragic fruit in the life of the church.

The first bitter fruit is legalism. I have already referred to those who
want their paid-up "tickets" to be buried with them. This is an
indication of a dangerous kind of legalism. It follows where people are
required to pay certain amounts of "offerings" to remain in good
standing. They really think that they thereby "earn a safe passage to
heaven." This is just a strengthening of an attitude which is all too
common in African churches as such: an emphasis on ritualistic
practices, a reliance on law, not grace. In as far as money matters
strengthen this tendency, it is doing much harm to the church.

A second negative result of the situation is the inward centeredness

caused by the financial struggles. All energy and attention are in many
churches focused on this one issue: to survive financially. There is
often a total disregard for that dimension that gives meaning to the
existence of the church: to be God's representative and witness on
earth. The focus is neither on God and the worship of God, nor on the
world, in which God's good news is to be proclaimed. A church existing
only for herself is in fact no longer a church in the theological sense of
the word (which calls for a missionary existence), but only a social
institution. Many churches have deteriorated into very little more than
such an existence. And the main reason is their financial struggles.

This pre-occupation with money boils down to a crass materialism.

Materialism is the enemy of everything spiritual. It negates the value
of anything which cannot be used or counted as a material benefit.
Materialism is not only a problem of the rich, but even more so that of
the poor. When one has to wage a constant battle for survival, one's
mind is occupied to such an extent with material things that thoughts

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
of a higher order are often crowded out. This happens to churches
whose sole occupation seems to be the collection of money, especially
when this money is never enough. Underpaid pastors complain and
quibble over money. Relations within the church become strained. The
members begin to despise the pastor's constant harping on the same
tune, and resent the strategies of extorting money from unwilling and
struggling parishioners. But also the relations with others suffer,
because it becomes mainly a financial one. It tends to take the joy
from ecumenical contacts.

All theseand more could be addedare aspects of the deadly disease

called dependency. This syndrome weakens the body (the church) to
such an extent that the church becomes unable to do anything.
People, or the church, suffering from this disease are unable to see
opportunities or to use them. It is a kind of paralysis, a mentality
which stifles all initiative and causes the sufferer to negate all
responsibility. A dependent person (or church) depends on others to
nourish and sustain him or her... but never receives enough, always
complains. Such a church is a disgrace, no positive witness to the
Lord. Such a church is not a healthy environment for Christian people.
This mentality stifles all growth and life, and is certainly far from what
can be expected from the church.

Dependency is also a contagious disease, it catches on. It doesn't take

long before all the members are just as dependent on outside help as
is the church. It cries in the face of a Spirit-filled, living Body of Christ!
In a country in which the prime struggle is to climb out of the deep
morass of poverty and powerlessness, the church is of no help if it is
itself poisoning the people with the virus of not taking responsibility for
its own affairs. The church should take the lead with a theology and
practice of responsibility and reconstruction.

Is this tragic situation necessary? Isn't there another way?

The scenario which was painted above is not a happy one. In reality it
is somewhat of an overstatement. There are churches who are self-
supporting. Others are fighting dependency6.

6
Glenn Schwartz of World Mission Associates makes it his job to find and publish
such examples. See his newsletter Transition Notes (P.O. Box 436, Reading, England
RG1 6DH).

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
Unfortunately, however, the general picture is too true for comfort.
What can be done about it? It shouldn't simply be accepted as
inevitable that the churches in poor communities exist like this. If this
kind of dependence is inevitable for the church, then a big question
mark should be put over its existence. There must be alternatives.

I am wondering whether the African Independent Churches (AICs)

cannot show the way to the (older) "mission" churches7.

You usually don't find this sickly dependency among these churches.
The "mission" churches can take a leaf from the book of the AICs.
They seem to have found a more affordable way of doing things. I
don't think that they set themselves to develop alternative structures
to those of the other church traditions. They just went about their
business in their own practical way. What is remarkable is that they
spontaneously returned to a simple model not unlike those we find in
the biblical record. But I will return to the biblical vision in a moment.

Their alternative structures can be seen in the area of each of the

expensive aspects of church work: their ministry, their buildings, their
administration, and their missions.

The AICs are characterized by a voluntary ministry. Very few of the

bishops or pastors are full-time and paid church staff. The general
pattern is what came to be known as "tentmaking." Like the biblical
Paul the church leaders support themselves by "making tents," while
at the same time serving and leading the church in whatever capacity.
The minister is totally supported financially only when a church is large
or strong enough to be able to afford it. The leadership is, therefore,
never an undue burden on the church finances.

The main difference with the "dependent" churches is the route by

which a person becomes a minister. In contrast to the "mainline"
churches, where it is usually young people who are academically
trained for the ministry, and who, after training, are called to (or foist
upon) a church, in the typical AIC the leader evolves out of local
church life. Whenever someone is acknowledged as leader, it means
that that person has already proven him/herself in the church ranks, is
well known and respected, and is an adult and trusted church
member. It is not through (academic) study that a person becomes a

7
After all, the "I" in AICs traditionally stood for "Independent". These churches are
not in the "dependency" mode.

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
church leader, but through experience and the practice of leadership
gifts.

Such a person is already settled in one or other job, whether it is as

entrepreneur or employee. It is not necessary for the church to take
responsibility for the support of that person. In contrast, the young
candidate for the ministry, coming from the school, has no way of self
support. Worse even, these students have usually accumulated all
sorts of debts which have to be paid. These people not only expect the
church to support them, but expect it to be at a level commensurate
with the (academic and ecclesiastic) status they think they attained.
Poor church!

Secondly, it is common for AICs to function without their own

buildings. Their worship takes place in the open, or they use rented
class rooms, or even the home of the leader or a member. In the rural
areas especially, but also in the cities, a clearing under a tree, or a low
"lapa" wall built from earth, or any other convenient place, serves as a
place to gather. The kind of worship meeting is therefore different. It
is not a monologous preaching service like those inherited from the
west. In the open they can dance freely, sit in a circle so that all can
take part, and engage with each other face to face. Only in the case of
the larger AICs, and for convenience (and status'?) sake, are church
buildings erected. These are then built without outside help, through
the gift offerings and labor of the members.

The same applies to their administration. Usually none of the

elaborate and sophisticated administrative systems and paper work is
undertaken. The organization is done on a person to person basis.
Records are kept in the collective memory. Instead of formal meetings
and minutes, they keep personal contact and coordinate by means of
visits and feasts. Only a very few AICs are such large organizations
that more than this kind of administration is necessary8.

Africa is not a continent for paper. It is populated by people of flesh

and blood, who talk, sing, dance and feast. Africa's administration
should be more oral and personal. (As a matter of fact, money also
only recently came to Africa, it was imported!) The AICs point towards
ways in which the church can function indigenously and in cost
effective ways.

8
It is interesting to see how the "small is beautiful" adage is return ing in the form of
"cell churches", "house churches" and "care groups" in the macro churches.

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
And then mission. It is interesting to see how the AICs grow without
specific and costly outreach. In the same spontaneous way that they
worship and function they also recruit new members. Their
independence gives them credibility. They are not dancing to someone
else's tune. They can feast and dance with abandon. It is attractive to
any African. People join these churches because they and their ills are
taken seriously. They are prayed for, and given symbols of a new life.
They are provided with a new "home" away from home. Their mission
is not something extra, but a way of life.

Apart from the AICs who are living and acting out their faith in such an
attractive way, other African movements also show the way in
mission. There is a burgeoning mission movement from Africa reaching
out into other parts of Africa and into the wider world. These
missionaries are poor, and are sent by poor churches, but they are
going. They are doing it in a much more affordable way. It is time that
all African churches discover the contribution they can make to the
world church. They can bring a breath of fresh air to the over
organized church.

Are the alternatives biblical?

The beauty of the alternatives which I have tried to communicate lies
in the extent to which it approximates the biblical visions of being
Church. It is certainly not possible or even commendable to try and
duplicate the church life depicted in the Acts of the Apostles. It is also
clear that there are a variety of church models reflected in biblical
literature and early church history. But one thing is certain: the
dependency model described above is very far removed from any of
those patterns and their underlying assumptions of being Church.
Dependency is certainly a departure from God's expectations for his
Body. Is it too much to call it a sinful state, a heresy? I am willing to
align myself with people who have already earlier called the structures
which prevent the church to be God's witnessing presence in the world
"heretical structures" (The Church for Others, 1967).

I have argued that church structures are often oppressive in terms of

the massive amount of money they require. I'm not here talking about

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu
(or to) churches who exist in affluent communities, where money may
be no problem. To them I have another message9.

But I gave examples of the kind of results a pre-occupation with

money has in poor communities. Mine is a call for realism, a more
simple living as church communities. It is from this perspective that I
propose a new appreciation for the structures of the AICs.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bonk, Jonathan J. 1991. Missions and Money. Affluence as a Western
Missionary Problem. Maryknoll: Orbis Books.

Kritzinger, J.J. 1979. 'n Missionêre Bediening. Op weg na strukture vir

'n jong kerk. Pretoria: NGKB.

Kritzinger, J.J. 1994. Church and Buildings, Practical Theology in South

Africa 9(2) 192-200.

Schwartz, Glenn J. 1995. Transition Notes. (Periodic Newsletter)

WCC. 1967. The Church for Others. Geneve: WCC.

9
There are churches who can afford all these things. But can the church as a whole
afford these churches? Shouldn't they rather also save on all this financial output, in
order to give more where gifts are needed?

This article was downloaded from

Missionsandmoney.eu